Terrorism Going Away?
In “Terrorism Here Today, Gone Tomorrow?” I examine the finding of the National Intelligence Council’s “Global Trends 2025” report, which predicts that terrorism will greatly recede as an issue in the coming years.
In “Terrorism Here Today, Gone Tomorrow?” I examine the finding of the National Intelligence Council’s “Global Trends 2025” report, which predicts that terrorism will greatly recede as an issue in the coming years.
Hmm…, because of the actions of George Bush or the expected actions of Barrack Obama?
Because of their own actions, mostly. They’re alienating the Muslim world and not offering much hope for the future.
I guess you are not paying attention to the Muslim Brotherhood are you James? Do you fully understand the main edict of Islam. Submission to God. Everybody is to be Muslim. They have not given up for 1400 years. I doubt they will quit right soon.
Zeis;
What it comes down to is the nature of the struggle.
Some take the call literally as a war.
James is suggesting that those are losing their influence.
I’m not so sure that’s the case, though, myself.
It’s not that they don’t take the call literally, it’s that we’ve got a new generation coming to power that has witnessed a previous generation of terrorism accomplish nothing. They are losing their influence because of lack of results, not lack of zeal.
Don’t mistake lack of bloodshed for lack of zeal.
Consider, for example the advances in institution of Sharia into the laws of western countries.
Consider also, how western culture and ideas have advanced into other cultures. The world is a smaller place than it once was, and people and ideas move about pretty freely.
I specifically said there was no lack of zeal. I said there was a general disillusionment in the ability of terrorism to achieve their goals.
Don’t President Bush and his minions deserve some credit for putting the terrorists into a position where they saw that as their best approach?
The terrorists still see it as their best approach, it’s the non-terrorists that have stopped seeing it that way. To that extent, the only credit that can be given to any western nation is not openly succumbing to the demands of the terrorists. So yea, good on Bush for not surrendering to them, but that still doesn’t mean our little Iraqi adventure was a good idea.
Sorry, Anjin… no sale.
Western culture has been spreading, based on it’s virtues, for 1000 years. The other direction, not so much. UNtil recently.
What you perceive as a virtue, another may not. Try and expand the scope of your thinking, “we are good, they are bad” is a bit of an oversimplification.
BTW, would you consider the crusades as an example of western culture spreading “based on its virtues”?
No, but then again, where they spread it thus, it didn’t really take hold for long, did it? You see, Anjin, where Christianity spread and took hold, was to the extent that people saw it as good. So, no, that’s not an oversimplification.
We’ve been taking many parts of eastern culture for quite some time. The flow of virtues has never been a one way street.
North and South America are examples that contradict this claim.
Michael beat me to the punch with this. So much for Bit’s theory.
Then there is the example of Moorish civilization in Europe. Moors where highly advanced at a time when counting to 10 was rocket science in Europe. Absent their influence, would the brilliant culture of exploration in Spain and Portugal have ever taken place?
Bit you really need to do better than “us good, them bad”.
Not really.
Consider that most of these were under Spanish influence for far longer.
Or are you saying, by chance that there was no positive influence after Torquemada?
You know exactly what we were saying, but instead of admitting that your off-the-cuff statement was maybe less accurate than you originally thought, you tried to find some way of redefining it such that you could still claim to have been right from the beginning.
It didn’t work.
So the series of genocidal wars waged by Europeans and their descendants against Native Americans which destroyed their civilization had nothing to do with the spread of Christianity in North America?
True. But I wonder if YOU do.
It worked fine because you know what I”m saying, and that’s more than sufficient. You’ve shown yourself as bent on defining western civ as the villain, regardless of any facts brought to the table.
Come now, Bit, after all this time you’re still going to question my intelligence?
I knew what you were trying to say, which is only slightly less wrong that what you actually said.
When the hell did I do that? Just because I don’t have to construct a fairy tale where Christianity and western civilization are perfect and anything else is evil, doesn’t mean that I love it any less. Indeed, those that love western civilization despite it’s flaws have more love than those who must deny those flaws in order to love it.
Yes, it had nothing to do with the spread of Christianity. The Europeans used Christianity as a justification for their destruction, but it wasn’t the reason for it. Columbus promised the Spanish crown gold, not converts.
I think you misunderstand my premise. The genocide of native people created something of a blank slate upon which Christianity could spread. I am thinking effect, not motive.
Not true. Michael’s point, as I understand it, is that virtue and evil have both flowed both ways. He is presenting a reasonable, balanced argument, and you are producing right wing talking points.